BULLYINGWARRIOR, NMUSD COMMUNITY, KIMBERLY AND NUMEROUS OTHER COMMUNITIES AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS WILL BE SUPPORTING KATHLEEN CARROLL AND WATCHING THIS CASE CLOSELY.
KATHLEEN IS BRAVE TO COME FORWARD TO MAKE CHANGES WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN CALIFORNIA AND HOPEFULLY SEND A CLEAR MESSAGE ACROSS THE UNITED STATES TO OTHER SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND OTHER COMMISSION ON TEACHER CREDENTIALING TO FOLLOW GOVERNMENT LAWS, PENAL CODES AND TAKE A STAND FOR JUSTICE.
_________________________________________________________________________________
DAN SIEGEL, SBN 56400
ANNE BUTTERFIELD WEILLS, SBN 139845 DEAN ROYER, SBN 233292
SIEGEL & YEE
499 I4tli Street, Suite 300
Oaldand, California 94612
Telephone: (510) 839-1200
Facsimile: (510) 444-6698
Attorneys for plaintiff KATHLEEN CARROLL
ANNE BUTTERFIELD WEILLS, SBN 139845 DEAN ROYER, SBN 233292
SIEGEL & YEE
499 I4tli Street, Suite 300
Oaldand, California 94612
Telephone: (510) 839-1200
Facsimile: (510) 444-6698
Attorneys for plaintiff KATHLEEN CARROLL
FILED
Superior Court Df
H/14/2012
BiJ
Case Numbur:
Superior Court Df
H/14/2012
BiJ
Case Numbur:
lalifornia,
Deputy
Deputy
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
KATHLEEN CARROLL;
Plaintiff, }
vs.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ACTING BY
AND THROUGH THE CALIFORNIA
COMMISSION ON TEACHER
CREDENTIALING; DALE JANSSEN, in j
his individual capacity; MARY )
Plaintiff, }
vs.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ACTING BY
AND THROUGH THE CALIFORNIA
COMMISSION ON TEACHER
CREDENTIALING; DALE JANSSEN, in j
his individual capacity; MARY )
Case No.
VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Employment/Civil Rights Jury Trial Demanded
VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Employment/Civil Rights Jury Trial Demanded
ARMSTRONG, in her individual capacity; 3
LEE POPE, in his individual capacity; ^
CHRISTA HILL, in her individual
capacity; ANI KINDALL, in her individual
capacity; and DOES 1 through 10, .
inclusive,
Defendants.
Defendants.
)
DEPARTMENT
ASSIGNMENTS
Case Management 39
Law and Motion 53 Minors Conipromise 43
Case Management 39
Law and Motion 53 Minors Conipromise 43
Plaintiff Kathleen Carroll complains against defendants California Commission on
Teacher Credentialing, Dale Janssen, Mary Armstrong, Lee Pope, Christa Hill, and Ani
Kindall as follows:
CarrollV. CTC, eta/., No. Verified Complaint—i
CarrollV. CTC, eta/., No. Verified Complaint—i
34-2012-001$ 'S52T
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1. Plaintiff Kathleen Carroll was employed by defendant California Commission on Teacher Credentialing ("CTC") as a staff counsel when she reported a serious bacldog in the processing of misconduct allegations and cases based on complaints against teachers and other public school employees and her superior's misrepresentation regarding the issue. The CTC is a regulatory agency that ser\'es as a state standards board for educator preparation for the public schools of California, the licensing and credentialing of professional educators, the enforcement of professional practices of educators, and the discipline of credential holders and applicants for credentials in the State of California. A Committee on Credentials ("Committee"), appointed by the 19-member Commission of the CTC and comprising seven citizens, reviews disciplinary allegations against credential holders and applicants, and recommends to the full Commission a particular
adverse action when warranted. Ms. Carroll reasonably beheved her employer and the 13
other defendants were engaged in violations of state and federal law that threatened the health and safety of California schoolchildren, the due process and legal rights of educators and other public school employees, the legal rights of CTC employees, and posed liability to the CTC. Ms. Carroll also resisted or refused to take actions that she reasonably believed violated the law or her duties as an attorney. Defendants responded to plaintiffs reports to her superiors and the Bureau of State Audits regarding the violations of law and her refusal to obey illegal orders by carrying out a series of adverse actions culminating in Ms. Carroll's termination. Ms. Carroll brings this action for violations ofthe California Whistleblower Protection Act, the California Labor Code whistleblower statute, and her constitutional right to free speech.
1. Plaintiff Kathleen Carroll was employed by defendant California Commission on Teacher Credentialing ("CTC") as a staff counsel when she reported a serious bacldog in the processing of misconduct allegations and cases based on complaints against teachers and other public school employees and her superior's misrepresentation regarding the issue. The CTC is a regulatory agency that ser\'es as a state standards board for educator preparation for the public schools of California, the licensing and credentialing of professional educators, the enforcement of professional practices of educators, and the discipline of credential holders and applicants for credentials in the State of California. A Committee on Credentials ("Committee"), appointed by the 19-member Commission of the CTC and comprising seven citizens, reviews disciplinary allegations against credential holders and applicants, and recommends to the full Commission a particular
adverse action when warranted. Ms. Carroll reasonably beheved her employer and the 13
other defendants were engaged in violations of state and federal law that threatened the health and safety of California schoolchildren, the due process and legal rights of educators and other public school employees, the legal rights of CTC employees, and posed liability to the CTC. Ms. Carroll also resisted or refused to take actions that she reasonably believed violated the law or her duties as an attorney. Defendants responded to plaintiffs reports to her superiors and the Bureau of State Audits regarding the violations of law and her refusal to obey illegal orders by carrying out a series of adverse actions culminating in Ms. Carroll's termination. Ms. Carroll brings this action for violations ofthe California Whistleblower Protection Act, the California Labor Code whistleblower statute, and her constitutional right to free speech.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2. Plaintiffs claims arise under the statutoiy law of the State of California.
3. The actions gi\nng rise to this lawsuit occurred in tlie County of Sacramento.
2. Plaintiffs claims arise under the statutoiy law of the State of California.
3. The actions gi\nng rise to this lawsuit occurred in tlie County of Sacramento.
Carroll v. CTC, et al.. No.
Verified Complaint—2
P ARTIES
4. At all relevant times, plaintiff Kathleen Carroll was a resident of Sacrainento County.
5. At all relevant times, defendant California Commission on Teacher Credentialing was a State agency located in Sacramento County.
6. At all relevant times, defendant Dale Janssen was a resident of Sacramento County.
4. At all relevant times, plaintiff Kathleen Carroll was a resident of Sacrainento County.
5. At all relevant times, defendant California Commission on Teacher Credentialing was a State agency located in Sacramento County.
6. At all relevant times, defendant Dale Janssen was a resident of Sacramento County.
-
At all relevant times, defendant Maiy Armstrong was a resident of Yolo County.
-
At all relevant times, defendant Lee Pope was a resident of Sacramento County.
-
Atallrelevanttimes,defendantChristaHillwasaresidentofSolanoCounty.
11. The true names and capacities of the defendants named herein as Does 1 through
10, inclusive, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise are unlcnown to
plaintiff, who therefore sues such defendants byfictitiousnames pursuant to Code of
Civil Procedure section 474. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that
each of the fictitiously named defendants is responsible in the manner set foi'th herein,
or some other manner for the occurrences alleged herein and that the damages as
alleged herein were proximately caused by their conduct. Plaintiff is informed and
believes, and thereon alleges, that each ofthe fictitiously named defendants is a
California resident. Plaintiff will amend this complaint to show the true names and
capacities of each of the fictitiously named defendants when such names and capacities
have been determined.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
12. Plaintiff Kathleen Carroll is a licensed California attorney who was employed as a
12. Plaintiff Kathleen Carroll is a licensed California attorney who was employed as a
Staff Counsel by defendant California Commission on Teacher Credentialing ("CTC")
starting in October 2006.
13. Ms. Carroll satisfactorily performed her duties as a Staff Counsel.
13. Ms. Carroll satisfactorily performed her duties as a Staff Counsel.
Carroll v. CTC, et ai. No.
Verified Complaint—3
14. In August of 2009, Ms. Carroll heard CTC General Counsel Mary Ai-msti'ong tell
tlie full Commission that there were little bacldogs of document processing at any given
time within the CTC.
15. Ms. CaiToU believed that a potentially very serious bacldog of unprocessed reports, cases, and documentary evidence concerning California credential applicants and credential holders ("educators") existed within CTC; and tliat CTC's mismanagement of this evidence jeopardized not only schoolchildren's safety, but also the due process and other legal rights of educators. Ms. Carroll believed tliat the foregoing was a violation of Education Code §§ 44240 through 44248,44320 through 4 4 3 5 5 J and 44420 through 44440; Government Code section 11340 et seq; the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution; and of Ms. Armstrong's duty to be trutliful to her client, the CTC and the California public.
16. On or about January 21, 2010, Ms. Carroll reported to CTC Chair Ting Sun that Ms. Armstrong had not been truthful in her comments to the Commission in August of 2009 about the processing of disciplinary records and cases, and that she had personal Icnowledge that cases invoKing mandatory offenses were part of a large bacldog of unprocessed misconduct allegation reports and cases at CTC.
17. On or about January 26, 2010, Ms. Carroll reported to CTC Director Dale Janssen that misconduct allegation reports and cases were not being timely processed, that mandatoiy actions against credential applicants and holders were being held up, and that educators who could potentially cause harm to children, including allegations involving sexual misconduct, vvere still holding their credentials. Ms. Carroll also reported to Mr. Janssen that the CTC discipline process lacked quality control and that low level employees were improperly making case prioritization decisions. Ms. Carroll further reported to Mr. Janssen the high level of cronyism, nepotism, and favoritism
that negatively impacted the working environment within the discipline division of tlie CTC, as well as the fear of retaliation among CTC employees within that division.
CaiToH V. CTC, et al. No. Verified Complaint—4
15. Ms. CaiToU believed that a potentially very serious bacldog of unprocessed reports, cases, and documentary evidence concerning California credential applicants and credential holders ("educators") existed within CTC; and tliat CTC's mismanagement of this evidence jeopardized not only schoolchildren's safety, but also the due process and other legal rights of educators. Ms. Carroll believed tliat the foregoing was a violation of Education Code §§ 44240 through 44248,44320 through 4 4 3 5 5 J and 44420 through 44440; Government Code section 11340 et seq; the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution; and of Ms. Armstrong's duty to be trutliful to her client, the CTC and the California public.
16. On or about January 21, 2010, Ms. Carroll reported to CTC Chair Ting Sun that Ms. Armstrong had not been truthful in her comments to the Commission in August of 2009 about the processing of disciplinary records and cases, and that she had personal Icnowledge that cases invoKing mandatory offenses were part of a large bacldog of unprocessed misconduct allegation reports and cases at CTC.
17. On or about January 26, 2010, Ms. Carroll reported to CTC Director Dale Janssen that misconduct allegation reports and cases were not being timely processed, that mandatoiy actions against credential applicants and holders were being held up, and that educators who could potentially cause harm to children, including allegations involving sexual misconduct, vvere still holding their credentials. Ms. Carroll also reported to Mr. Janssen that the CTC discipline process lacked quality control and that low level employees were improperly making case prioritization decisions. Ms. Carroll further reported to Mr. Janssen the high level of cronyism, nepotism, and favoritism
that negatively impacted the working environment within the discipline division of tlie CTC, as well as the fear of retaliation among CTC employees within that division.
CaiToH V. CTC, et al. No. Verified Complaint—4
18. In or about Januaiy of 2010, Mr. Janssen ordered an outside, private attorney to
conduct an investigation into Ms. Carroll's reports. Ms. Carroll discussed some of her
concerns with the investigator. The investigation lasted until May 2010, and was
intended to discredit Ms. Carroll and justify taidng adverse actions against her. Ms.
Armstrong and CTC Senior Staff Counsel Ani Kindall disclosed to the investigator Ms.
Carroll's private medical information, which had no relevance to the investigation of Ms
Carroll's reports. The investigator concluded that General Counsel Ai-mstrong did not lie
to the Commission in her remarlcs about the state ofthe bacldog.
19. Assistant General Counsel Lee Pope, Ms. Armsti-ong, and Ms. Kindall became aware of Ms. Carroll's reports either prior to or during the investigation.
20. In May of 2010, the California Joint Legislative Audit Committee, at Senator Darrell Steinberg's request, authorized the Bureau of State Audits ("BSA") to conduct a formal audit of CTC's educator discipline process and the issue of nepotism, favoritism, and potential conflicts of interest. The audit resulted from Ms. Carroll's December 2009 contact with tlie BSA Whistleblower Hotline, and subsequent report to Senator Steinberg in February of 2010.
21. In June of 2010, Mr. Janssen, Ms. Armstrong, Mr. Pope, and Director of Administrative Services Christa Hill decided that Ms. Carroll would be the sole CTC employee to be laid off as a fiscal year 2010-2011 cost-cutting measure. When they realized that a layoff process would not remove Ms. Carroll from CTC quicldy enough before the BSA auditors arrived at CTC, they decided to abandon the attempted layoff and instead proceed with an adverse action.
22. On a number of occasions, Ms. Carroll resisted or refused to take actions that she reasonably believed violated the law or her duties as an attorney, including, but not limited to, the following:
(a) In advance of an August 2010 meeting ofthe Committee of Credentials ("Committee"), Ms. Armstrong instructed Ms. Carroll to tell the Committee that she could not complete her research regarding guidelines for determining what conduct
CaiToll V. CTC, et ai. No. Verified Complaint—5
19. Assistant General Counsel Lee Pope, Ms. Armsti-ong, and Ms. Kindall became aware of Ms. Carroll's reports either prior to or during the investigation.
20. In May of 2010, the California Joint Legislative Audit Committee, at Senator Darrell Steinberg's request, authorized the Bureau of State Audits ("BSA") to conduct a formal audit of CTC's educator discipline process and the issue of nepotism, favoritism, and potential conflicts of interest. The audit resulted from Ms. Carroll's December 2009 contact with tlie BSA Whistleblower Hotline, and subsequent report to Senator Steinberg in February of 2010.
21. In June of 2010, Mr. Janssen, Ms. Armstrong, Mr. Pope, and Director of Administrative Services Christa Hill decided that Ms. Carroll would be the sole CTC employee to be laid off as a fiscal year 2010-2011 cost-cutting measure. When they realized that a layoff process would not remove Ms. Carroll from CTC quicldy enough before the BSA auditors arrived at CTC, they decided to abandon the attempted layoff and instead proceed with an adverse action.
22. On a number of occasions, Ms. Carroll resisted or refused to take actions that she reasonably believed violated the law or her duties as an attorney, including, but not limited to, the following:
(a) In advance of an August 2010 meeting ofthe Committee of Credentials ("Committee"), Ms. Armstrong instructed Ms. Carroll to tell the Committee that she could not complete her research regarding guidelines for determining what conduct
CaiToll V. CTC, et ai. No. Verified Complaint—5
by a teacher constituted overstepping boundaries with a student. Ms. Carroll
believed tliat vvith more time she could present the research and told Ms. Armstrong
that they owed the Committee a duty of full disclosure. On this basis, Ms. Carroll
refused to tell the Committee that the research could not be done, which she believed
would, be a violation of Business and Professions Code §§ 6067 and 6068.
(b) In August of 2010, Ms. Armstrong assigned Ms. Carroll a case involving a credential applicant. Ms. Carroll told Ms. Armstrong she would not sign a letter requesting more information from the applicant because she believed that such a request would be a violation of the coiut order in Heivitt v. Commission on Teacher Credentialing, which limited tlie types of information that could be requested by the CTC, and a violation of 5 California Code of Regulations § 80308.
23. The BSA commenced its audit in approximately June of 2010. Ms. Carroll
(b) In August of 2010, Ms. Armstrong assigned Ms. Carroll a case involving a credential applicant. Ms. Carroll told Ms. Armstrong she would not sign a letter requesting more information from the applicant because she believed that such a request would be a violation of the coiut order in Heivitt v. Commission on Teacher Credentialing, which limited tlie types of information that could be requested by the CTC, and a violation of 5 California Code of Regulations § 80308.
23. The BSA commenced its audit in approximately June of 2010. Ms. Carroll
cooperated fully with the BSA auditors between June and September of 2010. Ms.
13
14
15
i6
17 i8
19 20 21 22
17 i8
19 20 21 22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Carroll reported the conduct by Ms. Armstrong, Mr. Pope, Ms. Kindall, and others
within the CTC to BSA auditors, including, but not limited to, the following:
(a) allowing questions to appear on credential application forms that were outside the scope of what the CTC can legally investigate;
(b) discriminating and retaliating against CTC employees and educators, including, but not limited to, discrimination based on perceived mental health disabilities, and retaliating against anyone who questioned their practices;
(c) maintaining undergi'ound regulations, e.g., internal procedures in the absence of a rule-maldng process;
(d) failing to give notice to educators of tlie offenses that would subject them to discipline;
(e) opening cases against teachers without legal authority;
(f) deciding case outcomes without review by the Committee or CTC;
(g) improperly influencing case outcomes, e.g., tampering with the selection and composition of the Committee;
Carroll v. CTC, et al. No. Verified Complaint—6
(a) allowing questions to appear on credential application forms that were outside the scope of what the CTC can legally investigate;
(b) discriminating and retaliating against CTC employees and educators, including, but not limited to, discrimination based on perceived mental health disabilities, and retaliating against anyone who questioned their practices;
(c) maintaining undergi'ound regulations, e.g., internal procedures in the absence of a rule-maldng process;
(d) failing to give notice to educators of tlie offenses that would subject them to discipline;
(e) opening cases against teachers without legal authority;
(f) deciding case outcomes without review by the Committee or CTC;
(g) improperly influencing case outcomes, e.g., tampering with the selection and composition of the Committee;
Carroll v. CTC, et al. No. Verified Complaint—6
(h) altering documents, e.g., the documents' receipt dates;
(i) failing to follow the requirements of Monison v. State Board of Education, both internally and in communications with the Department of Justice;
0) entering into "staff settlements" without review by the CTC or the Committee; Oc) promoting the existence of a high level of nepotism, cronyism, favoritism, and potential conflicts of interest throughout CTC; and
G) the very serious bacldog of unprocessed reports, cases, and documentary evidence concerning California educators within CTC.
(i) failing to follow the requirements of Monison v. State Board of Education, both internally and in communications with the Department of Justice;
0) entering into "staff settlements" without review by the CTC or the Committee; Oc) promoting the existence of a high level of nepotism, cronyism, favoritism, and potential conflicts of interest throughout CTC; and
G) the very serious bacldog of unprocessed reports, cases, and documentary evidence concerning California educators within CTC.
Ms. Carroll believed that the foregoing were violations of Education Code §§ 44240
through 44248,44320 through 44355, and 44420 through 44440; 5 California Code.of
Regulations § 80308; tlie Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (20 U.S.C. § I232g
and 34 C.F.R. part 99); the Bagley-Keene Act (Government Code §§ 11120 through
11132); Government Code section 11340 etseq; and the Fourteen Amendment of the
U.S. Constitution.
24. Each of the defendants were aware of Ms. Carroll's cooperation with the BSA audit.
25. Before the BSA could complete its audit, in or about September of 2010, Ms. Carroll was denied union representation she sought to have for a meeting with Mr. Pope and Ms. Hill, abruptly put on administrative leave in that meeting, denied a scheduled meritsalaryadjustment,andthensummarilyterminatedftomstateserviceonspecious charges, effeclive November 29, 2010. Mr. Pope participated in the placement of Ms. Carroll on administrative leave and denial of her merit salaiy adjustment. Mr. Janssen, Ms. Ai-mstrong, Mr. Pope, and Ms. Hill participated in the termination of Ms. Carroll. Ms. Kindall had substantial influence on Mr. Janssen, Ms. Armstrong, and Mr. Pope with respect to each ofthe adverse actions, including, but not limited to, maldng false allegations that were used to justify Ms. Carroll's termination. Defendants also attempted to prevent Ms. Carroll fi'om obtaining unemployment benefits.
Carroll v. CTC, et al.. No. Veiified Compiaint—7
24. Each of the defendants were aware of Ms. Carroll's cooperation with the BSA audit.
25. Before the BSA could complete its audit, in or about September of 2010, Ms. Carroll was denied union representation she sought to have for a meeting with Mr. Pope and Ms. Hill, abruptly put on administrative leave in that meeting, denied a scheduled meritsalaryadjustment,andthensummarilyterminatedftomstateserviceonspecious charges, effeclive November 29, 2010. Mr. Pope participated in the placement of Ms. Carroll on administrative leave and denial of her merit salaiy adjustment. Mr. Janssen, Ms. Ai-mstrong, Mr. Pope, and Ms. Hill participated in the termination of Ms. Carroll. Ms. Kindall had substantial influence on Mr. Janssen, Ms. Armstrong, and Mr. Pope with respect to each ofthe adverse actions, including, but not limited to, maldng false allegations that were used to justify Ms. Carroll's termination. Defendants also attempted to prevent Ms. Carroll fi'om obtaining unemployment benefits.
Carroll v. CTC, et al.. No. Veiified Compiaint—7
26. In April 2011, the State Auditor confirmed Ms. Carroll reports of serious '
mismanagement and significant document processing bacldogs, a rampant level of
nepotism and favoritism that existed throughout the CTC, unlawful delegation of
decision making authority to CTC staff, and a high level of fear of retaliation among CTC
employees.
27. Soon thereafter, Mr. Janssen, Ms. Armstrong, and Mr. Pope were removed or left their positions at the CTC.
28.On or about November 29, 2010, Ms. Carroll timely appealed the adverse action terminating her employment to the State Personnel Board ("SPB"). On or about March 28, 2011, Ms. Carroll filed a Whistleblower Retaliation Complaint vvith the SPB under Government Code §§ 8547, et seq. and 19683, and California Code of Regulations section 67.1, et seq. These matters were consolidated and heard before a SPB Administrative Law Judge who rendered his proposed decision denying Ms. Carroll's appeal on April 16, 2012. The SPB adopted the ALJ's proposed decision on May 7, 2012. The decision was served upon Ms. Carroll on May 11, 2012.
29. On July 3, 2012, Ms. Carroll presented a completed Government Claims Form to the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board regarding the matters described herein. On July 12, 2012, the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board rejected Ms. Carroll's claim.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF FOR VIOLATION OF
THE CALIFORNIA WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ACT (against defendant California Commission on Teacher Credentialing) (Gov. Code, § 8547, ef seg.)
30. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 29 above as though fully set fortii herein.
31. By viitue of the foregoing, defendant CTC engaged in acts of retaliation against plaintiff for having made protected disclosures in violation of Government Code section 8547, etseq.
Carroll v. CTC, etal. No. Verified Complaint—8
27. Soon thereafter, Mr. Janssen, Ms. Armstrong, and Mr. Pope were removed or left their positions at the CTC.
28.On or about November 29, 2010, Ms. Carroll timely appealed the adverse action terminating her employment to the State Personnel Board ("SPB"). On or about March 28, 2011, Ms. Carroll filed a Whistleblower Retaliation Complaint vvith the SPB under Government Code §§ 8547, et seq. and 19683, and California Code of Regulations section 67.1, et seq. These matters were consolidated and heard before a SPB Administrative Law Judge who rendered his proposed decision denying Ms. Carroll's appeal on April 16, 2012. The SPB adopted the ALJ's proposed decision on May 7, 2012. The decision was served upon Ms. Carroll on May 11, 2012.
29. On July 3, 2012, Ms. Carroll presented a completed Government Claims Form to the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board regarding the matters described herein. On July 12, 2012, the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board rejected Ms. Carroll's claim.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF FOR VIOLATION OF
THE CALIFORNIA WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ACT (against defendant California Commission on Teacher Credentialing) (Gov. Code, § 8547, ef seg.)
30. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 29 above as though fully set fortii herein.
31. By viitue of the foregoing, defendant CTC engaged in acts of retaliation against plaintiff for having made protected disclosures in violation of Government Code section 8547, etseq.
Carroll v. CTC, etal. No. Verified Complaint—8
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF FOR VIOLATION OF
LABOR CODE SECTION 1102.5
(against defendant California Commission on Teacher Credentialing)
(Lab. Code, § 1102.5.)
32. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 31 above as tliough fully set forth herein.
33. By virtue of the foregoing, defendant CTC retaliated against plaintiff for disclosing what she reasonably believed were violations of federal and state laws to a government agency in violation of Labor Code section 1102.5.
34. By virtue of the foregoing, defendant CTC retaliated against plaintiff for refusing to participate in an activity that would result in a violation of federal and state laws in \iolation of Labor Code section 1102.5.
THIRD CLAIM FOR VIOLATION OF FREE SPEECH RIGHTS (against defendants Dale Janssen, Mary Ai-mstrong,
Lee Pope, Christa Hill, and Ani ICindall)
(42 US.C, §1983.)
35. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 34 above as though fully set forth herein.
36. By virtue of the foregoing, defendants Dale Janssen, Mary Armstrong, Lee Pope, Christa Hill, and Ani Kindall, acting under color of state law, wrongfully deprived plaintiff of her free speech rights guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States by participating in adverse employment actions against plaintiff in retaliation for her speech addressing issues of public concern in her capacity as a private citizen.
DAMAGES
37. As a result of the actions of defendant, plaintiff has been injured and has suffered damagesasfollows:
a. She has lost compensation and other employment-related benefits to which she has been entitled and will lose such compensation and benefits in the future;
b. She has suffered from emotional distress, embarrassment and humiliation, and has suffered damage to her professional reputation and standing;
Cairo// V. CTC, et al. No. Verified Complaint—9
(against defendant California Commission on Teacher Credentialing)
(Lab. Code, § 1102.5.)
32. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 31 above as tliough fully set forth herein.
33. By virtue of the foregoing, defendant CTC retaliated against plaintiff for disclosing what she reasonably believed were violations of federal and state laws to a government agency in violation of Labor Code section 1102.5.
34. By virtue of the foregoing, defendant CTC retaliated against plaintiff for refusing to participate in an activity that would result in a violation of federal and state laws in \iolation of Labor Code section 1102.5.
THIRD CLAIM FOR VIOLATION OF FREE SPEECH RIGHTS (against defendants Dale Janssen, Mary Ai-mstrong,
Lee Pope, Christa Hill, and Ani ICindall)
(42 US.C, §1983.)
35. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 34 above as though fully set forth herein.
36. By virtue of the foregoing, defendants Dale Janssen, Mary Armstrong, Lee Pope, Christa Hill, and Ani Kindall, acting under color of state law, wrongfully deprived plaintiff of her free speech rights guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States by participating in adverse employment actions against plaintiff in retaliation for her speech addressing issues of public concern in her capacity as a private citizen.
DAMAGES
37. As a result of the actions of defendant, plaintiff has been injured and has suffered damagesasfollows:
a. She has lost compensation and other employment-related benefits to which she has been entitled and will lose such compensation and benefits in the future;
b. She has suffered from emotional distress, embarrassment and humiliation, and has suffered damage to her professional reputation and standing;
Cairo// V. CTC, et al. No. Verified Complaint—9
38. In taidng the actions alleged above, defendants Dale Janssen, Mary Armstrong,
Lee Pope, Christa Hill, and Ani Kindall engaged in the conduct alleged herein with
malice, oppression, and recldess disregard of plaintiffs right to be free of retaliation for
engaging in protected free speech. Accordingly, plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages
against defendants Dale Janssen, Mary Armstrong, Lee Pope, Christa Hill, and Ani
Kindall in this action.
c. She has incurred out-of-pocket expenses for health care benefits.
PUNITIVE DAMAGES
PUNITIVE DAMAGES
WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests that this Court grant her relief as follows:
(1) Injunctive relief to require defendant to reinstate her as Staff Counsel together
with all pay, benefits, seniority, and emoluments of that position; and treat her without
retaliation;
(2) Compensatory damages for lost wages and benefits, in an amount to be determined;
(2) Compensatory damages for lost wages and benefits, in an amount to be determined;
(3) Interest at the legal rate;
(4) General damages for emotional distress, pain and suffering, in an amount to be
determined;
(5) Special damages for out-of-pocket expenses;
(6) Punitive damages, in an amount to be determined;
(7) Attorney's fees;
(8) Costs of suit; and
(9) Such other and furtiier relief as tlie Court may deem proper.
(6) Punitive damages, in an amount to be determined;
(7) Attorney's fees;
(8) Costs of suit; and
(9) Such other and furtiier relief as tlie Court may deem proper.
Carrollv.CTC, etal,No.
Verified Complaint—10
Dated: November 13, 2012
Carroll v. CTC, et al, No.
Verified Complaint—11
SIEGEL &YEE
•^Dean Royer
Attorneys for plaintiff Kathleen Carroll
•^Dean Royer
Attorneys for plaintiff Kathleen Carroll
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.